[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16313]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 6, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 55-60117, License No. SOP-11160, IA 94-014]
Order Prohibiting Involvement in 10 CFR Part 55 Licensed
Activities (Effective immediately)
In the Matter of: Stephen Mignotte, Senior Reactor Operator.
I
Stephen Mignotte (Mr. Mignotte) held Senior Reactor Operator
License No. SOP-11160 (License) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55. The license
authorized Mr. Mignotte to manipulate, and to supervise the
manipulation of, the controls of the nuclear power reactor at the New
York Power Authority's (Facility Licensee) Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power
Plant in Buchanan, New York. On November 23, 1993, Mr. Mignotte
resigned his employment with the New York Power Authority, which caused
the License to expire. Additionally, the Facility Licensee, in a letter
dated December 23, 1993, informed the NRC that the New York Power
Authority no longer had a need to maintain Mr. Mignotte's operating
license for the Indian Point Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant.
II
The responsibilities associated with a Senior Reactor Operator
license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55 require that individuals be
fit for duty while performing safety-related activities at the
facility. The character of the individual, which includes the
individual's trustworthiness, is a consideration in issuing an operator
license. See Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 2232a). In determining whether or not an individual seeking
a license to be a reactor operator or senior reactor operator has the
necessary character and trustworthiness, the Commission takes into
account any history of illegal drug use by the applicant. Prior to May
26, 1987, each applicant for a reactor operator or senior reactor
operator license was required to certify that the applicant had no drug
or narcotic habit on the Certificate of Medical Examination, NRC Form
396. Since that time, the NRC has required an evaluation of the
applicant prepared by a physician as part of a license application. See
10 CFR 55.23(a). This evaluation is presented on a Certificate of
Medical Examination, NRC Form 396. See 10 CFR 55.23. Among the factors
to be considered by the certifying physician are factors such as use of
illegal drugs or abuse of alcohol. See Form 396; see also ANSI/ANS 3.4-
1983, Section 5.2.2.
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 26, the Facility Licensee
established a program to provide reasonable assurance that nuclear
power plant personnel are not under the influence of any substance,
legal or illegal, which affects their ability to safely and competently
perform their duties, including measures for early detection of persons
who are not fit to perform licensed activities. In addition, licensed
operators are required by 10 CFR 55.53(j) to refrain from use of
illegal drugs, including marijuana and cocaine. Licensed operators are
also required by 10 CFR 55.53(k) to participate in 10 CFR Part 26
fitness-for-duty programs established by the Facility Licensees.
III
On November 23, 1993, Mr. Mignotte, while on duty as a Senior
Reactor Operator at the Indian Point 3 facility, was requested by the
Facility Licensee to provide a urine sample to the nurse at the plant
after being randomly selected as part of the routine fitness for duty
chemical testing program required of the Facility Licensee by the NRC
pursuant to 10 CFR 26.24. After receiving a sample from Mr. Mignotte,
the nurse checked the temperature of the sample, noticed that it felt
``cool to the touch'', and found that the temperature was below
specifications in 10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A, Sec. 2.4(g)(14), for
acceptable urine samples. As a result, Mr. Mignotte was requested to
provide a witnessed urine sample to the Facility Licensee in accordance
with the same section of the Appendix. Mr. Mignotte provided a second
sample which was subsequently determined, on November 30, 1993, to
contain both marijuana and cocaine above cutoff levels specified by the
Appendix. After the witnessed urine sample had been collected on
November 23, 1993, Mr. Mignotte was suspended from licensed duties and
he subsequently resigned that same day. These facts were provided to
the NRC by the Facility Licensee, in letters dated December 23, 1993
and January 3, 1994, and were discussed in the report of an NRC
inspection conducted January 12-13, 1994.
The results of the second, witnessed urine sample indicate that Mr.
Mignotte used illegal drugs, which is a violation of the conditions of
his license imposed by 10 CFR 55.53(j). Furthermore, his performance of
licensed duties while under the influence of illegal drugs is also a
violation of the conditions of his license imposed by 10 CFR 55.53(j).
Based on the temperature of the first urine sample provided by Mr.
Mignotte and the fact that the first sample yielded negative results
when tested for illegal substances while the subsequent, witnessed
sample yielded positive results, I conclude that the first sample was a
surrogate false sample, submitted by Mr. Mignotte in an attempt to
conceal illegal drug use.
10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) prohibits any employee of a licensee from
deliberately submitting to the NRC, a licensee, or a licensee's
contractor or subcontractor, information that the person submitting the
information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect
material to the NRC. The urine samples collected within the context of
a licensee's chemical testing program pursuant to the requirements of
10 CFR Part 26 represent information material to an access
authorization and fitness-for-duty decision. Therefore, Mr. Mignotte's
deliberately submitting inaccurate information material to the NRC in
the form of a false sample is a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). In
addition, Mr. Mignotte violated 10 CFR 50.5(a)(1) by deliberately
providing to the Facility Licensee a surrogate urine sample that he
knew to be inaccurate at the time he submitted it and which, but for
detection, would have caused the Facility Licensee to be in violation
of 10 CFR 50.9(a).
Mr. Nignotte's failure to comply with the prohibition against
illegal drug use and his attempts to circumvent the chemical testing
program to avoid detection of illegal drug use while employed by the
Facility Licensee are violations of the conditions of Mr. Mignotte's
license imposed by 10 CFR 55.53 (j) and (k), and demonstrate an
intentional disregard for the important obligations of a licensed
operator.
IV
Based on the above, Mr. Mignotte, an employee of the New York Power
Authority at the time of the incident, engaged in deliberate misconduct
in violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(1) and (2) by deliberately violating 10
CFR 55.53(k), in that he submitted to the facility licensee information
which he knew to be inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. Mr.
Mignotte, a licensed Senior Reactor Operator at the time of the event,
also used illegal substances and performed licensed duties while under
the influence of illegal substances in violation of 10 CFR 55.53(j),
and deliberately failed to participate in the fitness-for-duty program
established by the facility licensee in violation of 10 CFR 55.53(k).
The NRC must be able to rely on its licensees and their employees,
especially NRC-licensed operators, to comply with NRC requirements,
including the requirement to provide information and maintain records
that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Mignotte's
actions in using illegal drugs and attempting to circumvent fitness-
for-duty requirements have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be
relied upon to comply with NRC requirements applicable to licensed
individuals and to provide complete and accurate information to the
NRC.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that Mr.
Mignotte will conduct any 10 CFR Part 55 licensed activities in
compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and
safety of the public will be protected with Mr. Mignotte engaged in
such licensed activities at this time. Therefore, I find that the
public health, safety, and interest require that Mr. Mignotte be
prohibited from involvement in 10 CFR Part 55 licensed activities for
three years from the date of this Order. Furthermore, pursuant to 10
CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of the misconduct described
above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that
this Order be immediately effective.
V
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 107, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182
and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR
55.61, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that:
A. Mr. Mignotte is prohibited for three years from the date of
this Order from engaging in licensed operator activities licensed by
the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55.
B. For a period of three years from the date of this Order, Mr.
Mignotte shall provide a copy of this Order to any prospective
employer engaged in activities licensed by the NRC pursuant to 10
CFR Part 50 prior to his acceptance of employment with such
prospective employer so that the employer will have notice of the
prohibition against Mr. Mignotte's involvement in licensed operator
activities licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55.
C. For three years from the date of this Order, Mr. Mignotte
shall provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name,
address, and telephone number of the employer, within 72 hours of
his acceptance of an employment offer, from an employer who is
engaged in activities licensed by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part
50.
The Director, Office of Enforcement may, in writing, relax or
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Mignotte
of good cause.
VI
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Mignotte must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this
Order, and may request a hearing within 20 days of the date of this
Order. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents
to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made
in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which
Mr. Mignotte or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons
as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request
for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Service Section,
Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555; to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at
the same address; to the Regional Administrator, Region I, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406;
and to Mr. Mignotte, if the answer or hearing request is by a person
other than Mr. Mignotte. If a person other than Mr. Mignotte requests a
hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in
which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall
address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).
If a hearing is requested by Mr. Mignotee or a person whose
interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order
designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held,
the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order
should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. Mignotee or any person
adversely affected, by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a
hearing, at the time that answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding
officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the
ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness,
is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded
allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for a hearing, the provisions
specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of
this Order without further order or proceedings. An answer or a request
for a hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of June 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James L. Milhoan,
Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional
Operations and Research.
[FR Doc. 94-16313 Filed 7-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M